glide pro & telephoto2x

Val Rodriguez · May 23rd, 2003, 08:18 PM

Jeff, Steve,
Given that you are adding more glass to the equation and in general that has a detrimental effect on the captured images, have you noticed any appreciable image degradation when shooting with the teleconverter?.

Ignacio Artiñano · May 24th, 2003, 12:19 AM

About the Century Optics 2X bayonet mounted on the XM2:

You get a black ring on the screen when you go to the wide angle side of the zoom (around 1/3 till the end of the wide angle side).

No hood provided, yes it is threaded and very good optical quality.

Best to all.
Ignacio

Alan Craven · May 24th, 2003, 05:04 AM

Hello,

I have used a Sony 1.7X converter on my PAL XM1 for two years now, without any detrimental effects to the camera, as far as I can see.

As I use the camera exclusively for bird photography, it is attached to the camera most of the time.

There is certainly vignetting at the wide end of the zoom, but there is not much point using the converter in those circumstances. If there is any image degradation it is not obvious - I never convert my material from miniDV to any other format.

Subjectively autofocus is slower to lock on, and when following a bird in flight viewed against the sky, focus is more easily lost, than without the converter. I do not think that the optical image stabilisation is anywhere near as effective as it is without the converter. I have taken to using shorter focal lengths when shooting and using the zoom filter in my DV500 editing set-up.

I use the camera on a set of Gitzo carbon fibre legs (G1127) with a Gitzo G2380 head. I cope with the front heavy problem by adding a Manfrotto Universal Sliding Plate between camera and head.

Val Rodriguez · May 24th, 2003, 05:16 PM

Hi Alan,
Do you use any filters between the lens and the Sony 1.7x teleconverter?

Wayne Orr · May 24th, 2003, 07:17 PM

Flaring is not much of a problem with long lenses, unless the sun is low in the horizon in the direction you are pointing the camera. But if you are looking for an inexpensive solution to flares, take a look at the Flare Buster at http://www.flarebuster.com Originally designed to work with still cameras, it is just as effective with video cameras. Mounts to your accessory shoe, or, your tripod connection. It works especially well with wide lenses where flares really are a concern. A great gadget at a fair price.

Jeff Donald · May 24th, 2003, 08:21 PM

Several of the early posters mentioned that adding a 2X tele-convertor would reduce the light by 2 stops. This is incorrect. If the convertor is attached at the front of the lens, no light is lost (actually a little is lost to internal reflection etc.). If the convertor is attached between the lens and the body (like the XL1 and 35mm cameras) then light is lost relative to the magnification. One stop is lost for 1.4X and 2 stops for 2X magnification. This is due to the Inverse Square Law.

What Alex was trying to say is a 20X zoom is not the magnification, but the zoom range. A tele-convertor. would not change the zoom range because it magnifies throughout the entire range. A 2X doubles the magnification of the lens.

Ignacio Artiñano · May 24th, 2003, 10:30 PM

Hello Val.

About your question the answer is yes. But I'm using the Century Optics x2.0 conveter with a Matte box for polarized filters.

Alan Craven · May 25th, 2003, 12:05 AM

Hello Val Rod,

In answer to your question: I use no filters - I take the UV filter which I normally have in place (for protection as much as anything) off when I use the 1.7X converter.

I suspect that the presence of a filter would increase the vignetting, though I haven't investigated this.

Jeff Price · May 27th, 2003, 09:58 AM

I've noticed no image degradation. I did use a filter with the glass removed between the camera and the teleconverter for a while (to prevent corss-threading). I thought it might be throwing things off (increased vignetting, etc.) so I took it off. For various reasons I needed to get a GL2 so I just leave the lens on it and use the old GL1 for closer objects (thought I may still switch which camera I use for what).

For the front-heaviness on the tripod I'm just going to add a weight to the handle.

Jeff Price · May 27th, 2003, 10:00 AM

One other note. The lens cap on my teleconverter always pops off so I needed another solution. For the last year I've used Saran Quick Covers. Think of a small shower cap.....

Jeff Donald · May 27th, 2003, 03:11 PM

Some TuperWare lids fit very nicely as lens caps and they don't fall off.

Steve Nunez · May 27th, 2003, 05:19 PM

Imperceptable image degradtion (I can't see any)...opens up a whole new world of possibilities...worth it in every way.

Sony 1.7X Tel

Val Rodriguez · May 27th, 2003, 06:30 PM

Thank you all,
for the very informative repplies. The Sony 1.7 teleconverter is in my priority shopping list. I live next to a wilderness area where there's plenty of coyotes, red shoulder and red-tailed hawks. So I can't wait to get it. I am thinking about adapting or designing a lens brace to support the teleconverter. Any ideas?

May 23rd, 2003, 08:18 PM	#16
Val Rodriguez Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Mission Viejo, CA Posts: 35	Jeff, Steve, Given that you are adding more glass to the equation and in general that has a detrimental effect on the captured images, have you noticed any appreciable image degradation when shooting with the teleconverter?. __________________ Val Rod

May 24th, 2003, 12:19 AM	#17
Ignacio Artiñano Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Madrid/Spain Posts: 44	About the Century Optics 2X bayonet mounted on the XM2: You get a black ring on the screen when you go to the wide angle side of the zoom (around 1/3 till the end of the wide angle side). No hood provided, yes it is threaded and very good optical quality. Best to all. Ignacio __________________ Ignacio Artiñano

May 24th, 2003, 05:16 PM	#19
Val Rodriguez Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Mission Viejo, CA Posts: 35	Hi Alan, Do you use any filters between the lens and the Sony 1.7x teleconverter? __________________ Val Rod

May 24th, 2003, 07:17 PM	#20
Wayne Orr Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Northridge Ca Posts: 734	Flaring is not much of a problem with long lenses, unless the sun is low in the horizon in the direction you are pointing the camera. But if you are looking for an inexpensive solution to flares, take a look at the Flare Buster at http://www.flarebuster.com Originally designed to work with still cameras, it is just as effective with video cameras. Mounts to your accessory shoe, or, your tripod connection. It works especially well with wide lenses where flares really are a concern. A great gadget at a fair price. __________________ Wayne If it was easy, they'd get a relative to do it.

May 24th, 2003, 08:21 PM	#21
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Several of the early posters mentioned that adding a 2X tele-convertor would reduce the light by 2 stops. This is incorrect. If the convertor is attached at the front of the lens, no light is lost (actually a little is lost to internal reflection etc.). If the convertor is attached between the lens and the body (like the XL1 and 35mm cameras) then light is lost relative to the magnification. One stop is lost for 1.4X and 2 stops for 2X magnification. This is due to the Inverse Square Law. What Alex was trying to say is a 20X zoom is not the magnification, but the zoom range. A tele-convertor. would not change the zoom range because it magnifies throughout the entire range. A 2X doubles the magnification of the lens. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

May 24th, 2003, 05:04 AM	#18
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	Hello, I have used a Sony 1.7X converter on my PAL XM1 for two years now, without any detrimental effects to the camera, as far as I can see. As I use the camera exclusively for bird photography, it is attached to the camera most of the time. There is certainly vignetting at the wide end of the zoom, but there is not much point using the converter in those circumstances. If there is any image degradation it is not obvious - I never convert my material from miniDV to any other format. Subjectively autofocus is slower to lock on, and when following a bird in flight viewed against the sky, focus is more easily lost, than without the converter. I do not think that the optical image stabilisation is anywhere near as effective as it is without the converter. I have taken to using shorter focal lengths when shooting and using the zoom filter in my DV500 editing set-up. I use the camera on a set of Gitzo carbon fibre legs (G1127) with a Gitzo G2380 head. I cope with the front heavy problem by adding a Manfrotto Universal Sliding Plate between camera and head.

May 24th, 2003, 10:30 PM	#22
Ignacio Artiñano Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Madrid/Spain Posts: 44	Hello Val. About your question the answer is yes. But I'm using the Century Optics x2.0 conveter with a Matte box for polarized filters. __________________ Ignacio Artiñano

May 25th, 2003, 12:05 AM	#23
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	Hello Val Rod, In answer to your question: I use no filters - I take the UV filter which I normally have in place (for protection as much as anything) off when I use the 1.7X converter. I suspect that the presence of a filter would increase the vignetting, though I haven't investigated this.

May 27th, 2003, 09:58 AM	#24
Jeff Price Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Chico, California Posts: 357	I've noticed no image degradation. I did use a filter with the glass removed between the camera and the teleconverter for a while (to prevent corss-threading). I thought it might be throwing things off (increased vignetting, etc.) so I took it off. For various reasons I needed to get a GL2 so I just leave the lens on it and use the old GL1 for closer objects (thought I may still switch which camera I use for what). For the front-heaviness on the tripod I'm just going to add a weight to the handle. __________________ Jeff Price Flickerflix Nature Videos flickerflix@yahoo.com

May 27th, 2003, 10:00 AM	#25
Jeff Price Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Chico, California Posts: 357	One other note. The lens cap on my teleconverter always pops off so I needed another solution. For the last year I've used Saran Quick Covers. Think of a small shower cap..... __________________ Jeff Price Flickerflix Nature Videos flickerflix@yahoo.com

May 27th, 2003, 03:11 PM	#26
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Some TuperWare lids fit very nicely as lens caps and they don't fall off. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

May 27th, 2003, 05:19 PM	#27
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	Imperceptable image degradtion (I can't see any)...opens up a whole new world of possibilities...worth it in every way. Sony 1.7X Tel __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

May 27th, 2003, 06:30 PM	#28
Val Rodriguez Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Mission Viejo, CA Posts: 35	Thank you all, for the very informative repplies. The Sony 1.7 teleconverter is in my priority shopping list. I live next to a wilderness area where there's plenty of coyotes, red shoulder and red-tailed hawks. So I can't wait to get it. I am thinking about adapting or designing a lens brace to support the teleconverter. Any ideas? __________________ Val Rod